Don Reisinger:
Sony was once viewed as the world’s most successful gaming company. After it launched the original PlayStation, many wondered if it could take off until, well, it did. And as we all know, the PlayStation 2 was a gaming juggernaut.
But all of that changed with the PlayStation 3. The console launched at a price that was far too expensive for what customers were getting, and it lacked the uniqueness of Nintendo’s Wii, which caught on quickly. Microsoft’s Xbox 360, while not as popular as the Wii, benefited from a strong online-gaming component.
For Southeast Asia, new price changes.
Prices effective starting May 1st, 2026.
Replies(1)Looks like PlayStation took a hit with Marathon and is now quietly adjusting prices worldwide to recover the losses
Lets be honest raising prices doesn't do that when no one's buying it. I imagine the profit it greater selling 10 times more at a lower price
LMFAO Your comment alone says a lot more about you than anything else. When has one game not selling 10 million copies made a company raise the prices of their console? Then Xbox would be costing $5000 by now lol. You remind of the crazy drug addicts on the street rambling on about conspiracies. xD You sure you don't need a hug, buddy?
One game that Sony payed $200 million for. lol
Also, you sure were quick to get triggered. Maybe your the one who needs a hug?
If nothing else, we should be united against the real issue here. AI and unnecessary tariffs that are effecting all gamers.
The price increases are due to the RAM demand associated with AI and the US-Iran war. You can look to any business news website and local news to see that. Heck, even the 2026 Asus Zenbook Duo I've been eyeing has faced delays and has had a price increase of $400; that laptop has two specs. Asus is doing a staggered release with per-orders for the lower spec now and shipping in May and pre-orders for the higher spec that I'm eyeing starting in June. Basically, all computer manufactures are affected. It'll most likely start affecting smart phones too if it hasn't already. I can't remember the last time any major console maker (Nintendo, Sony, Sega, etc) increased the price of their console mid cycle outside of Microsoft just to make more profit.
War is causing gas prices to rise. Transport of everything requires gas so the prices of those items go up as well. So it does have an impact
The blockage of the Straight of Hormuz due to the US-Iran war has affected raw components used in semi-conductor manufacturing such as bromine, aluminum, and helium. Iran had attacked the liquified natural gas (LNG) plant in Qatar which is a large producer (1/3 globally) of helium which is used in semiconductor etching. So it's the both the war and the RAM crises.
Former Xbox executive Ed Fries comments on the early days of Xbox, the opinion of Japanese game companies, and more.
Replies(2)I dont think that'll ever happen. But i must say back in the day, they were definitely trying because they were more cash rich than their competitors.
I think MS were and still are the richer company. They tried to acquire Sega back in the day (and considered doing so again more recently), they obviously bought exclusivity to Halo which was originally shown as a Mac title. I don’t think as a company MS can claim the moral high ground here. It’s a wilful lack of self awareness.
Of course Sony would try exactly the same if they had the resources, but when the PS2 dominated the industry was in a much healthier place with an abundance of great third parties.
This has been a depressing generation as far as first party decisions are concerned. The fact we are debating business plans rather than which game is better is a sad reflection of the state of things.
There was Nintendo as well, Sony wouldn't have had a monopoly. In fact, the world would be better today if Xbox never existed in the first place. They pretty much brought all bad practices we have today. We might have gotten all of it either way, but not this early. In term of franchises, I don't think there is anything Microsoft released that would actually be missed if it didn't exist. Even Halo the world wouldn't notice if Halo didn't exist.
I think almost everyone will agree that a monopoly is not good for the industry. But that being said, the competition needs to be smart and strategic with their business. Simply buying up publishers and traditional third-party studios just to keep them out of the other companies reach is not a sustainable practice. That goes for all parties so don't think I'm just referring to Xbox.
I'm no business guru by any stretch of the imagination but I firmly believe that the best way to drive consumers to your software and hardware is to invest smart in your first-party studios. Give them full support and guidance in making unique, fun games that are only available to play in your ecosystem and the gamers will come.
But first party studios aren't enough. They only make up a small portion of the industry. Without 3rd party there would be no industry for Microsoft or sony.Developing games take time and money and sometimes you gotta make moves to stay competitive.
Nah, I never said first-party was enough. I said it’s the ‘best way’ to drive gamers to your platform. 3rd-party is a free-for-all and there’s no guarantee that gamers will use your hardware to play the game. If you want to push your own software and/or hardware you need first-party, or at least exclusive deals with third-party studios.
Then why be so emotional and continue to talk about it. Xbox will never die be ause it stays in so many people's head.
How can you even see him being "emotional" in that comment?
If anything, you're the emotional one, constantly trying to go at anyone that says anything against Microsoft. So when you call him emotional, it comes off as deflection
Replies(2)Sony uploaded gameplay footage of Crimson Desert on a base PS5 running in what appears to be Quality Mode at a stable 30fps at 4K.
Sony is the best gaming company. I don't say that because they make a handful of familiar games yearly or because they cater to only casuals or hardcore. I say it because they cater to all with high quality exclusive software and high quality hardware.
Some will disagree because of sales but one wouldn't have to ponder why they would think that except to cite their reasoning which is telling.
I read this earlier what a fail article.
I feel Sony have done a lot right with the PS3 and in some circumstances are actually the only ones taking risks with new ips. It started expensive with very little going for it but since then Sony have learn't and they have produced some of the best and innovative new franchises this generation (especially in a period where new franchises are few and far between)
The vita situation is interesting. I have longed thought that Sony should get out of this market because of the rise in mobile devices who are starting to produce some quality games or they start making their devices more than a gaming device. The problem with the vita is creating a system seller. Portable gaming is usually for a younger crowd and they need (people are going to hate me for saying this but if they want to shift massive amounts of units they are going to have to do it) casual puzzle/ brain training/ those types of games I am also surprised they do not try to get small mobile developers developing app games for the vita.
They are too concerned with gaining marketshare cutting price yearly and continuos redesigns it looking desperate now. They need to accept they will be 3rd and try to actually start making some money so they can survive next gen.
As for Vita I got a feeling even with those big holiday games it won't help it sell more, smarts phones are just more appealing and do so much more than just play games. If I were Sony I would drop Vita and focus on making the PS3/PS4 the best they can.
Another one of this "PS3/Vita/Sony iz doomed article"? Serious?
Is it really so hard to find ANY other news?
You so called journalists should go stand in the corner and shame yourself... and then write an "professional" item..